Re: Non-smoking rooms at the Hiroshima venue?
Hi all, On Tuesday 01 September 2009 19.30.04 Michael StJohns wrote: As of today, I was only able to book a twin room SMOKING at 19,000y at the ANA - there are no singles at the lower rate. [snip] Could you also comment on the mix of rooms that the agreement covers? E.g. how many singles, doubles, etc? I find it problematic that less than 18 hours after registration opens, we're already out of the lower cost rooms and the non-smoking rooms. Sigh. Problematic... yep. Shoulda booked a smoking room yesterday :-( I'll let Alexa and team see if this is going to be the way it is or if we can get more small rooms. The difference in price is non-negligible. Cheers, David ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Non-smoking rooms at the Hiroshima venue?
Greetings, I just set about to reserve a room at the meeting hotel via http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/cp/1/en/cwshome/DPRD-7LT5AJ/HIJJA (which required that I join their PriorityClub...). Check-in on Saturday, check-out on Friday (nothing odd there). I was, though, VERY surprised that there are no non-smoking rooms available. All I got was: 1 SINGLE BED STANDARD SMOKING at ￥13,500. If I want non-smoking, I seem to have to pay 23,000 and have 2 beds. Is this other's experience as well? While I can survive a smoking room, I'd really rather not. I haven't tried calling, so perhaps that's the solution. Can anything be done to get us some non-smoking rooms since I suspect that's what almost everyone wants? Cheers, David ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi all, On Thursday 24 April 2008 09.22.22 Tom.Petch wrote: The people who believe that YANG is more expressive and better suited for this poarticular purpose include contributors to the design of SMIv2, MIB Doctors, members of the NMRG who helped develop the SMING information and data modeling language, contributors to the SMIng WG which worked on developing a proposed SMIv3 to converge the SMIv2 standard and the SPPI data modeling language standard and the NMRG SMING approach, and engineers who have multiple independent implementations of running code for Netconf data modeling. Sounds magnificent but who are these people and where are they? Do you want me to list them? If you want to know who's going to work on the topic, I suggest you first look at the list of people on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00745.html and thereafter add people like Andy Bierman and Jürgen Schönwälder. I don't think it's particularly strange that most of the YANG traffic has been from a small group of people. We have had zero official status in the IETF up to now, although the list has been hosted on ietf.org. The document has been worked on by the people behind YANG, so they're obviously the ones who know it best. If you want numbers... the YANG gang itself is 6 people, from 4 companies and one university. The internal discussions have been intense. The charter discussion group included 11 other people representing a bunch of other interests. That group sent 575 mail messages from March 14 through April 7 and everyone participated. Do I think everyone's going to be very active in an eventual WG? No. But do I think we'll have critical mass? Absolutely. The OM community _really_ cares about this issue. Frankly, I haven't seen the kind of energy in this particular part of the IETF in many many years. We _must_ get a standard in place so we can stop answering this question, How do I model in NETCONF? with, Do whatever you want since there's no standard. I do track the YANG and NGO mailing lists and what I see there worries me. I see a significant number of questions along the lines; of what does this mean, how can this ever work, how can I do ... and the questions are all very reasonable and need answers - which they mostly get, even if they are somewhat too often along the lines of 'oh dear', or 'more work needed'. Naturally, more work is needed. That's why we want a working group... But they are the sort of questions I, for all I have done with SMI, ASN.1 and other languages, would not have thought to ask; they come from someone at the sharp end writing code for today's boxes. Yet these questions are almost all coming from just one person with a specific market place, and if he can find so many doubts and queries, how many more are there waiting to be discovered? That one person - hi, Andy! - is doing a magnificent job but for a new language to live up to its billing, we need half a dozen such people, from different parts of OM to find the holes; and I just do not see them, at least not on the YANG and NGO mailing lists. There are at least three NETCONF implementers on the list (in the YANG gang), plus a large cross-section of the OM community at the IETF. See the numbers above. Perhaps I'm thick, but I don't see how this _doesn't_ qualify as critical mass. The answers, likewise, mostly come from the same three or so people; again, I am concerned that there are not more, given the claims of yang. This causes me to doubt that we, the IETF, really has the community of interest to undertake such a challenging assignment. And, given the above, I have no doubt whatsoever. Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi, I should probably just sit down and be quiet, but I have a few comments. On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.56.40 Eric Rescorla wrote: At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:16:02 +0200, Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote: instead of discussing if there was consensus AT THE BOF (we all know that at this point in time we DO have consensus between all the interested WORKERS in this space, albeit that the current consensus was arrived at in further (smaller) meetings, in extensive DT work after the IETF and again after review on NGO list). Which is why it is now returned to the broader community for additional perspectives from those not already committed to a particular path Yes, indeed. It was returned to the broader community of people who care about NETCONF on March 31, three weeks ago. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00745.html If you don't think we have consensus, please demonstrate that by pointing out public mail (other than yours) since that time that objects to this way forward. You won't find it from the XSD people, from the RelaxNG/DSDL people, from the Kalua people, from the YANG people (that's the complete list of proposals that were shown at the CANMOD BOF) or from anyone else. In fact, ALL of those groups were involved in formulating the charter that we're now discussing. If that's not community consensus, then I have no idea what is. I propose that you list (again) your (technical) objections to the the current proposal. Sure. Based on my knowledge of modelling/protocol description languages, the techniques that Rohan described based on RNG and Schematron seemed to me quite adequate to get the job done and the relatively large baggage introduced by defining another language (YANG) which is then translated into them seems wholly unnecessary. I won't speak for Rohan or for the XSD people, but _they_ aren't objecting to this way forward, either. Again, they we were involved in the charter formulation. I appreciate that some people believe that YANG is more expressive and better suited for this particular purpose, but I didn't see any really convincing arguments of that (I certainly don't find the arguments in F.2 of draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang dispositive). Given what I know of the complexity of designing such languages, and of their ultimate limitations and pitfalls, this seems like a bad technical tradeoff. Almost everyone else (I can't claim 100%) that's gone through this whole discussion for the last year (it all started in Prague) disagrees with you and thinks it's a reasonable way forward. If all you can tell us is that we need to spend just more cycles on re-hashing the pros and cons of many possible approaches, then I do not see the usefulness of that discussion and with become silent and leave your opion as one input to the IESG for their decision making process. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. This is precisely the technical discussion that needs to happen in a public forum, not on some design team and then presented as a fait accompli. You continue to try to make it sound like there's some little clique of people who've done something in secret and who're now ramming it down the community's collective throats. That's simply incorrect. The community has reached consensus and wants to move on. Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Greetings, On Tuesday 22 April 2008 18.10.10 Eric Rescorla wrote: I object to the formation of this WG with this charter. For those who haven't been involved in the discussions to date, Eric has objected to this work from the very beginning, as far back as the first attempt to get a BOF and has continued to object since that time. As such, I'm not surprised that he objects now. While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical direction. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The OM community in the IETF has been talking about this specific topic for a long time, both in official and unofficial settings. We've had many hours of meetings where people from all various viewpoints have had hashed out their differences. This all culminated during the last IETF in a rather strong sense of consensus amongst those most interested in this work that it's time to stop talking and move forward, and that YANG was the best way to do that. No, not everyone agreed, but we DO have rough consensus in the OM community and with the APPS area people who were involved that this was a reasonable approach forward. So, what about this consensus thing? Sometimes ADs have to make a call, and my take is that Dan Ron did so. They asked people representing ALL of the proposals to work on a proposal for a charter. We spent a great many cycles doing exactly that. All of the proposals that you saw presented at the CANMOD BOF were very active in the charter proposal discussions and the result is the consensus of all of those people. No one got exactly what they wanted, but I think everyone felt is was a reasonable way forward. So, we have consensus amongst the various proposals' authors. Thereafter, the WG charter proposal was published on the NGO (netconf goes on) mailing list, which is a list used for non WG-related discussions but tightly coupled to NETCONF. APPS area people were, of course, also involved. The proposed charter was published well in advance of discussion within the IESG. There were some requests for changes (which happened), but no one jumped up and said, NO WAY! So, I certainly think that indicates we have consensus in the NETCONF and APPS communities. Then the IESG discussed the proposed charter and that's where this discussion comes up. Other than your mail, there's been zero (public?) objection to forming this working group. So, what's my point? That everyone who cares about this work and is engaged in it _does_ agree that we have consensus to move forward in this direction, that there has been public scrutiny of the proposal, and that it's time to move on. I am completely convinced that more BOFs are not going to change any of this. It's time to move on and get some work done. Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.06.57 Eric Rescorla wrote: Perhaps that's true, but I don't see that that's an argument against actually running an open process rather than declaring a winner in advance and asking the IETF to ratify it.' Hi, There seems to be an underlying argument that we've somehow been doing cloak dagger backroom cigar-smokin' stuff. That's not true at all, which I hope my previous response adequately demonstrated. Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.01 Eric Rescorla wrote: The sum of all this verbiage is that, precisely as I said, there wasn't consensus at the BOF, but that there was some set of rump meetings where this compromise was hashed out. Greetings, And what will be gained by forcing us to jump through more hoops? You seem to dismiss the consensus because it didn't happen the way you think it should. How does it make it less the consensus? Cheers, David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Hi all, On Tuesday 22 April 2008 23.14.03 Andy Bierman wrote: IMO, there is strong community consensus for the charter as it is currently written. There are several technical approaches, such as 'continue to write data models in XSD' which are technically viable, but have no community consensus at all. I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined in the charter. The 15 people on the design team represented a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work. I am among the 10 - 15 people who were not involved in the design team, but agree with the charter. That seems like a lot of consensus for this technical approach. Absolutely. Well said. David ___ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 72 -- Dublin!
Greetings, Just a quick question... On Thursday 31 January 2008 22.56.12 Ray Pelletier wrote: Rooms are 130 EUR which includes breakfast and Internet access. Only 1,000 rooms have been reserved on the peak nights. Don't get shut out! I don't see a promotion code or the like that we're supposed to use when booking. Is it possible to book the rooms now at the 130 Euro rate? Did I just miss something? Thanks. David ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Vancouver schedule
On Thursday 10 November 2005 19:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: We still need to decide what the best schedule is for Dallas. Howdy, I wasn't in Paris, so this is my first experience with this schedule. I greatly prefer this new schedule, but I do find the time between fuel to be too long. An unhurried dinner is a great feature. I've always hated having to rush back for evening sessions. Oh, and _please_ don't start at 08:00. Some of us have enough trouble with 9 o'clock. :-) David ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
